lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 68,061 
Likes: 49,462
|
Post by lordroel on Nov 14, 2020 10:15:15 GMT
With the WWI thread I'm getting a strong deja vu as most/all of today's post I remember from yesterday. Did you accidentally post it yesterday by mistake and today is a correction? Steve
I did post today by mistake yesterday, my apologies, normally i leave room between each day so this does not happen. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,863
Likes: 13,250
|
Post by stevep on Nov 14, 2020 10:24:03 GMT
With the WWI thread I'm getting a strong deja vu as most/all of today's post I remember from yesterday. Did you accidentally post it yesterday by mistake and today is a correction? Steve
I did post today by mistake yesterday, my apologies, normally i leave room between each day so this does not happen.
No problem. Given the size of the task your set yourself accidents will happen. I suspected that was the case but just wanted to check. Thanks.
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 68,061
Likes: 49,462
|
Post by lordroel on Nov 14, 2020 10:25:20 GMT
I did post today by mistake yesterday, my apologies, normally i leave room between each day so this does not happen. No problem. Given the size of the task your set yourself accidents will happen. I suspected that was the case but just wanted to check. Thanks.
Well it will be a lot easy for a while now i have only 2 daily update to do. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,863
Likes: 13,250
|
Post by stevep on Nov 14, 2020 10:30:10 GMT
No problem. Given the size of the task your set yourself accidents will happen. I suspected that was the case but just wanted to check. Thanks.
Well it will be a lot easy for a while now i have only 2 daily update to do.
At least until you start that one on the minor disorder in the US back in the 1860's. As you say its going to be a problem if you can't find something for every day, especially given how limited reporting was then. A 'nothing happened today' in the middle of a civil war is like the famous scene from the end of "All Quiet on the Western Front".
Steve
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 68,061
Likes: 49,462
|
Post by lordroel on Nov 14, 2020 10:45:37 GMT
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,863
Likes: 13,250
|
Post by stevep on Nov 17, 2020 13:13:55 GMT
Now that's an interesting comment in the WWII thread. Interesting reading:
I didn't realise their torpedo strike force was so small. True they had a lot of dive bombers which might be effective against smaller ships - or CV if present - as well as many other targets to hit. If the 3rd wave hadn't been cancelled that would have been largely against port facilities which might have harmed the US war effort in the Pacific more than the actual attack on the fleet in the longer term.
Steve
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,863
Likes: 13,250
|
Post by stevep on Nov 20, 2020 11:44:24 GMT
One quick query on the WWI post today. You have:
Should this be to include addition exemptions [presumably from conscription] for such skilled workers?
Coming up to the disaster in Mesopotamia and have the continued disaster that is the Italian attacks on the Isonzo.  I don't know if those calculations for convoys in the Med are accurate or not but its a disappointment that the calculation prevents the introduction of convoys. Of course at this period of time aircraft are a lot more limited, in both numbers and capacity then even in a couple of years times so there's less understanding of how they could take up some of the slack, especially in the choke points that the navies seem so worried about.
Steve
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 68,061
Likes: 49,462
|
Post by lordroel on Nov 20, 2020 13:57:41 GMT
One quick query on the WWI post today. You have:
Should this be to include addition exemptions [presumably from conscription] for such skilled workers? Thanks will edit it. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,863
Likes: 13,250
|
Post by stevep on Nov 21, 2020 18:37:31 GMT
A couple of points on today's WWII post. a) Indie may be using outdated info about force Z. Costello's book was published back in 1981 and while it respresented the views at the time they have been questioned on a couple of the points mentioned, at least on the naval site I've spent a long time on. I.e. i) Indomitable was never intended to join the force before the end of the year. Its grounding while working up in the W Indies delayed matters but if that hadn't occurred it wouldn't have been with the rest of the force in time for the Japanese attack. ii) Also there are questions about how much Tom Phillips was neglectful of the air threat. After all Britain had already been at war for two years and seen a lot of ships sunk or damaged by air attack in the Norweign and Med campaigns. Where he did fail as did everybody else at the time was being unaware of the range of the Japanese bombers operating from the Saigon region.
Also in your text, talking about the new USS Indiana Battleship USS “Indiana” is launched. She is the second battleship of the United States Navy to bear that name. She is of the South Dakota Class, a ship originally built to conform to the 35,000 ton treaty limit (although the 16” guns were not in conformity with said treaties). The South Dakota class (“South Dakota”, “Indiana”, “Massachusetts”, “Alabama”) were excellent ships; small and cramped but with very good hitting power and armor protection. “Indiana” was scrapped in 1962, and only a few pieces of her remain. Her main mast and twin sets of 40 mm quad AA guns are on the west side of IU’s Memorial Stadium in Bloomington, IN. Some pieces of her teakwood deck were cut into commemorative plaques in the shape of the State of Indiana, one of which sits behind the judge’s bench in Hamilton Superior Court 1 in Noblesville.
That isn't actually accurate. The 1921 and 30's treaties had nothing restricting armament of new ships below 16" so the guns were quite acceptable. Britain had argued for a maximum limit of 14" in the 1936 2nd London Naval Treaty and the US had been willing to accept that IF Japan did but the latter refused. As such the S Dakota class, like the preceding N Carolina made use of an escalation clause which allowed 16" guns.
Steve
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 68,061
Likes: 49,462
|
Post by lordroel on Nov 21, 2020 18:43:34 GMT
A couple of points on today's WWII post. a) Indie may be using outdated info about force Z. Costello's book was published back in 1981 and while it respresented the views at the time they have been questioned on a couple of the points mentioned, at least on the naval site I've spent a long time on. I.e. i) Indomitable was never intended to join the force before the end of the year. Its grounding while working up in the W Indies delayed matters but if that hadn't occurred it wouldn't have been with the rest of the force in time for the Japanese attack. ii) Also there are questions about how much Tom Phillips was neglectful of the air threat. After all Britain had already been at war for two years and seen a lot of ships sunk or damaged by air attack in the Norweign and Med campaigns. Where he did fail as did everybody else at the time was being unaware of the range of the Japanese bombers operating from the Saigon region. Also in your text, talking about the new USS Indiana Battleship USS “Indiana” is launched. She is the second battleship of the United States Navy to bear that name. She is of the South Dakota Class, a ship originally built to conform to the 35,000 ton treaty limit (although the 16” guns were not in conformity with said treaties). The South Dakota class (“South Dakota”, “Indiana”, “Massachusetts”, “Alabama”) were excellent ships; small and cramped but with very good hitting power and armor protection. “Indiana” was scrapped in 1962, and only a few pieces of her remain. Her main mast and twin sets of 40 mm quad AA guns are on the west side of IU’s Memorial Stadium in Bloomington, IN. Some pieces of her teakwood deck were cut into commemorative plaques in the shape of the State of Indiana, one of which sits behind the judge’s bench in Hamilton Superior Court 1 in Noblesville.
That isn't actually accurate. The 1921 and 30's treaties had nothing restricting armament of new ships below 16" so the guns were quite acceptable. Britain had argued for a maximum limit of 14" in the 1936 2nd London Naval Treaty and the US had been willing to accept that IF Japan did but the latter refused. As such the S Dakota class, like the preceding N Carolina made use of an escalation clause which allowed 16" guns. Steve
Interesting stevep, thanks. Do i need to edit the entry of the Indiana to reflect what you mentioned. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,863
Likes: 13,250
|
Post by stevep on Nov 21, 2020 18:52:08 GMT
A couple of points on today's WWII post. a) Indie may be using outdated info about force Z. Costello's book was published back in 1981 and while it respresented the views at the time they have been questioned on a couple of the points mentioned, at least on the naval site I've spent a long time on. I.e. i) Indomitable was never intended to join the force before the end of the year. Its grounding while working up in the W Indies delayed matters but if that hadn't occurred it wouldn't have been with the rest of the force in time for the Japanese attack. ii) Also there are questions about how much Tom Phillips was neglectful of the air threat. After all Britain had already been at war for two years and seen a lot of ships sunk or damaged by air attack in the Norweign and Med campaigns. Where he did fail as did everybody else at the time was being unaware of the range of the Japanese bombers operating from the Saigon region. Also in your text, talking about the new USS Indiana Battleship USS “Indiana” is launched. She is the second battleship of the United States Navy to bear that name. She is of the South Dakota Class, a ship originally built to conform to the 35,000 ton treaty limit (although the 16” guns were not in conformity with said treaties). The South Dakota class (“South Dakota”, “Indiana”, “Massachusetts”, “Alabama”) were excellent ships; small and cramped but with very good hitting power and armor protection. “Indiana” was scrapped in 1962, and only a few pieces of her remain. Her main mast and twin sets of 40 mm quad AA guns are on the west side of IU’s Memorial Stadium in Bloomington, IN. Some pieces of her teakwood deck were cut into commemorative plaques in the shape of the State of Indiana, one of which sits behind the judge’s bench in Hamilton Superior Court 1 in Noblesville.
That isn't actually accurate. The 1921 and 30's treaties had nothing restricting armament of new ships below 16" so the guns were quite acceptable. Britain had argued for a maximum limit of 14" in the 1936 2nd London Naval Treaty and the US had been willing to accept that IF Japan did but the latter refused. As such the S Dakota class, like the preceding N Carolina made use of an escalation clause which allowed 16" guns. Steve
Interesting stevep , thanks. Do i need to edit the entry of the Indiana to reflect what you mentioned.
I would say yes because as I understand it the US ships were all in compliance with all three naval treaties. The only reason why Britain kept with 14" guns was because given its more threatened position it couldn't afford to delay production to see what the Japanese reaction would be as the US was able to with the N Carolina's.
Steve
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 68,061
Likes: 49,462
|
Post by lordroel on Nov 21, 2020 19:18:51 GMT
Interesting stevep , thanks. Do i need to edit the entry of the Indiana to reflect what you mentioned. I would say yes because as I understand it the US ships were all in compliance with all three naval treaties. The only reason why Britain kept with 14" guns was because given its more threatened position it couldn't afford to delay production to see what the Japanese reaction would be as the US was able to with the N Carolina's. Steve
Thanks i will edit it then. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,863
Likes: 13,250
|
Post by stevep on Nov 22, 2020 17:26:13 GMT
On today's WWII thread you have:
Is this a typo as it doesn't seem to fit?
Interesting the last reference. Britain was sending Force Z to Malaya and Japan was naming its attack on Pearl as Operation Z! 
Steve
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 68,061
Likes: 49,462
|
Post by lordroel on Nov 22, 2020 17:27:59 GMT
On today's WWII thread you have:
Is this a typo as it doesn't seem to fit? Interesting the last reference. Britain was sending Force Z to Malaya and Japan was naming its attack on Pearl as Operation Z! Steve
A sorry, it should be Schiff 16 instead of ship 16 which would be the English translation for the word ship. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,863
Likes: 13,250
|
Post by stevep on Nov 22, 2020 17:43:48 GMT
On today's WWII thread you have:
Is this a typo as it doesn't seem to fit? Interesting the last reference. Britain was sending Force Z to Malaya and Japan was naming its attack on Pearl as Operation Z! Steve
A sorry, it should be Schiff 16 instead of ship 16 which would be the English translation for the word ship.
OK thanks for clarifying. It does actually fit in then as presumably that was the German classification for the Atlantis. Just seemed to be a bit out of place. Thanks.
Steve
|
|
I don't know if those calculations for convoys in the Med are accurate or not but its a disappointment that the calculation prevents the introduction of convoys. Of course at this period of time aircraft are a lot more limited, in both numbers and capacity then even in a couple of years times so there's less understanding of how they could take up some of the slack, especially in the choke points that the navies seem so worried about.